Bobbsy
Boring Old Git
Ah, so Cyclone Yasi (a Category 5 storm that hit Queensland a couple of years ago) must have been analogue while Hurricane Katrina (only category 3 must have been a digital storm.
It all makes sense now!
It all makes sense now!
grimtraveller
If only for a moment.....
Naw, we left the OP and the 388 behind a long while back. This has become one of those thread sidetracks. Sometimes, they're interesting.
I totally disagree. How we feel personally is the motivating nexus. That's why I value personal anecdotes, not evangelism.
Cost effectiveness is irrelevant. I'm not a money head. I'm attracted to music recording and there exist two mediums through which to do it. Both are cool, I've spent a long time in both and the positive arguments that people put up in favour of both, I find equally attractive.
I happen to be one of those arcane individuals that believes that what matters is the chops of the person{s} doing the recording, not the medium through which it's done.
I believe my recordings are better since I went digital. But not because of digital, rather, because I've improved in general thanks to a combination of factors.
Let me just add as a qualifying statement that I'm no longer addressing the OP's specific question as I think they've achieved what they wanted. Which makes the thread a success.
I'm with you on that !
That transitional addiction is far more to do with specific individuals. People can just say "NO !".
And yet, they do........
That's also a choice. And there are now so many different studios offering different strokes for different folks. But people master the tools they choose to.
While I agree with you in part on this, this is one consequence of capitalism and "market forces"......truth is though, music and musicians have never driven the music business. The biz has always had murky, shadowy figures driving it and the major motivation, then as now, is money.
Sometimes. But it's irrelevant either way because I'm not trying to prove that one is better or worse than the other. For me, it's an interesting discussion but as important and relevant as plasma vs LCD or DVD vs Blueray or petrol vs diesel or gas cookers vs electric ones. In other words, not at all.
B
Beck
Guest
An anecdote is when someone ignores statistics and offers their personal experience against the overriding and different experience of the general population. For example I could say something like, "Well my hard drives never crash and I've never had problems with any Windows operating system or program." But the fact is my experience would be unique and thus not typical when looking at the grand view of the technology. Since I work in IT I know how fickle computers can be... and let me count the ways. But I wouldn't have to work with problem computers all day to know this. I'd just have to own one. Let's get real! The weak link of the modern PC is no secret.
It might be if digital heads didn't keep arguing the point. I didn't start this argument. It's always been in the brochures from the beginning. I'm simply pointing out the fallacy by reminding people that every Windows or MAC problem is a DAW problem. People will often separate the computer from the DAW when calculating costs and downtime. You can't because your PC is as much a part of your DAW as the audio interface and recording software.
grimtraveller
If only for a moment.....
I never disputed that some computers can be finnicky. But that's nothing to do with the merits of digital recording. One could point out the delicacy of tape. And I'd say exactly the same thing to them.
Again, I'd say the same thing to those going on about the cost effectiveness of digitalia.
Cost effectiveness is really as relevant as ice.
Unless it's important to you. But it has no impact on the recording mediums.
B
Beck
Guest
I agree this far... that cost-effectiveness certainly isn’t the only consideration, but I’m not really arguing that. I’m simply answering a point (That was raised here) that is always in the list of pros on the side of PC-based DAWs, and that is the claim that they are more cost-effective than the analog route. All things considered they really aren’t. It’s just one of many misconceptions in the list of pros and cons. But whenever one claim is challenged in these discussions the usual outcome is that the subject is changed to another claim… another misconception, such as analog is too hard, you can’t find tape, etc. And my favorite… you have to wait for the tape to rewind! Man, if a person doesn’t have enough patience to shuttle tape back and forth they’re in the wrong line of work! LOL
Where cost-effectiveness comes in is when you have two basically equal options and you can save money without taking a hit in quality or usability. My sig hints to that. You may not need a Studer for your project studio. It just may be overkill. It’s more cost-effective to choose a Tascam and in many cases there are absolutely no practical downsides to that choice of the lower costing but fully capable machine… except perhaps that you don’t get to run up and down your street buck naked screaming, “I got a Studer! I got a Studer!”
Same goes for running up and down your street naked or not screaming, "I use Pro Tools!" (I'll take Cool Edit Pro/Adobe Audition over pro tools any day... and I'll keep my shirt on, 'cuz I'll still have a shirt after the purchase)
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
Not to mention...many people strictly working in the computer have a tendency to constantly chase the upgrades, both hardware and software, even if their current stuff still works....which adds more to the cost.
If you have good piece of analog gear, you tend to hold on to it and use it for many, many, many years...that's why so many vintage pieces are still in use and in constant demand.
My view of DAWs is to stick with what you have for as long as it does the job...and avoid keeping up with the upgrades just for the sake of upgrades. Often, when you upgrade one major component in the DAW rig, it forces other upgrades...adding more to the cost.
If you have good piece of analog gear, you tend to hold on to it and use it for many, many, many years...that's why so many vintage pieces are still in use and in constant demand.
My view of DAWs is to stick with what you have for as long as it does the job...and avoid keeping up with the upgrades just for the sake of upgrades. Often, when you upgrade one major component in the DAW rig, it forces other upgrades...adding more to the cost.
Bobbsy
Boring Old Git
Personally, I'm so into digital that I'm looking for a digital vocalist to replace the crap analogue ones I've recorded up to now...
More seriously, if the DAW user is one to chase every upgrade, yeah that gets expensive. On the other hand, many of us tend to sit on our working systems and pour no money into it between major changes.
Similarly, some analogue gear will just sit there and work; other purchases will need lots of TLC (your time=money) and lots of hard-to-find spare parts. Then there's the vexed issue of tape--yes, you can save money by only having a few and constantly recycling them but that's a dreadful operational compromise if, like me, you like to go back to old mixes and alter them years later.
In short, I agree that cost effectiveness is a pretty minor argument--most of us are involved because we enjoy what we do and would rather put hobby money into a microphone (or 16 track analogue recorder or a new DAW) rather than a set of golf clubs. It's fun to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of analogue vs. digital but the reality is that it's down to personal preference. (In my case, the preference of my heart is spinning reels; the preference of my head is a computer.)
More seriously, if the DAW user is one to chase every upgrade, yeah that gets expensive. On the other hand, many of us tend to sit on our working systems and pour no money into it between major changes.
Similarly, some analogue gear will just sit there and work; other purchases will need lots of TLC (your time=money) and lots of hard-to-find spare parts. Then there's the vexed issue of tape--yes, you can save money by only having a few and constantly recycling them but that's a dreadful operational compromise if, like me, you like to go back to old mixes and alter them years later.
In short, I agree that cost effectiveness is a pretty minor argument--most of us are involved because we enjoy what we do and would rather put hobby money into a microphone (or 16 track analogue recorder or a new DAW) rather than a set of golf clubs. It's fun to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of analogue vs. digital but the reality is that it's down to personal preference. (In my case, the preference of my heart is spinning reels; the preference of my head is a computer.)
kjell159
New member
Digital for me,
just because I have never used analog.
just because I have never used analog.
Johnny Nowhere
New member
Bobbsy
Boring Old Git
Autotune!
LOL! I wouldn't need autotune if I could hire the doctor hologram from Star Trek Voyager to do the vocals though!
Marconiex
New member
"If I Could Just Put On A CD And Get This Kind Of Sound, I Wouldn't Bother Messing With Tape"
Analog Rules!
Analog Rules!
CrowsofFritz
Flamingo!
Thank you for your input.
Johnny Nowhere
New member
So what's happened here? Things were just getting interesting. If we may return to the antique automobile analogy, I'd like to make two somewhat relevant points.
1) Inspiration. I love to sit down at my equipment and watch all of that shit begin to turn when I hit the 'play' button. Always have. I simply don't get that same feeling listening to the hum of a hard drive. After rebuilding a big block 454, firing it up for the first time and hearing the naturally aspirated monster suck air through a Holley carburetor, working on an Honda engine just won't get yer rocks off. Trust me. Then again, I always preferred an analogue watch to a digital one.
2) Second Hobby. My nephew once told me that the difference between my generation and his, was that when something broke, my generation would tear it down and repair it, whereas his would simply roundcan the item and buy another. I was inclined to agree. I love to work on a deck. I like the smell of solder. I like the taste of the electricity when I touch a 9 volt battery to my tongue. I'm freaking addicted to fixing stuff. And I can't repair a digital unit.
1) Inspiration. I love to sit down at my equipment and watch all of that shit begin to turn when I hit the 'play' button. Always have. I simply don't get that same feeling listening to the hum of a hard drive. After rebuilding a big block 454, firing it up for the first time and hearing the naturally aspirated monster suck air through a Holley carburetor, working on an Honda engine just won't get yer rocks off. Trust me. Then again, I always preferred an analogue watch to a digital one.
2) Second Hobby. My nephew once told me that the difference between my generation and his, was that when something broke, my generation would tear it down and repair it, whereas his would simply roundcan the item and buy another. I was inclined to agree. I love to work on a deck. I like the smell of solder. I like the taste of the electricity when I touch a 9 volt battery to my tongue. I'm freaking addicted to fixing stuff. And I can't repair a digital unit.
Last edited: